Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (99632)	5/30/2003 9:55:16 PM
From: KLP	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

John, I'm honestly sorry to hear you say this. Professors, of all people, should have open minds. Your's would be closed, if this is what you think ~~(on trusting G and H more than Rumsfield, the Entire Administration, the CIA, the Military Intelligence, Interpol, The British Intelligence, the State Department, etc.) How sad. And as far as the 2000 election, we can't discuss it here. But since you brought it up, I can pretty well guess that this next election, hundreds of thousands of military ballots won't just "get lost", or "stuck" on a ship someplace, and other ways of "accidently not arriving in time for the election....". And hopefully, MORE people will pay MORE attention to the manufacturers of voting machines, and where they were manufactured... Did you know that machines in the disputed counties in FL (the same counties that were Democratic Party controlled) were ALL manufactured by the same small manufacturer out of Arkansas? Odd coincidence eh? If SI's search worked, and it may again someday...you could see what I and others found and posted during that time. MOST interesting material. And documented from the "small Arkansas manufacturer's website...." BTW, I liked Sam Nunn's opinions on many issues. Yes, I trust G and H more. And you and I know that if Gore had been chosen by the Supreme Court instead of Bush, the Reps would be beating up on Gore's likely Secretary of Defense, Sam Nunn.

To: JohnM who wrote (99632)	5/31/2003 5:03:55 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Embracing The True Nature Of Patriotism __________________________________________ By Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. The Seattle Times Thursday 29 May 2003 truthout.org Many Americans today feel a sense of personal vulnerability they have never felt before, even during the Second World War. Terrorism, undeterred and very likely intensified by our victory in Iraq, has given a new and scary dimension to war. The vast majority of us agree on the objective of eradicating terrorism, but we sometimes disagree on the best means of attaining that objective. The idea is spreading that, when mortal danger threatens, we must suspend discussion and debate, rally 'round the flag, and allow the president to be the unquestioned single voice of a nation. This belief raises a couple of questions I believe history might help us answer. First: Do a democratic people have a moral obligation to cease debate and dissent in times of war? Second: Did our ancestors abstain from debate and dissent when their government took them to war? These two questions presuppose a third: What is the true nature of patriotism anyway? The answer to the first question is that going to war does not abrogate freedom of conscience, thought and speech. In the midst of World War II, the Supreme Court held that compelling kids in public schools to salute the flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance violated the First Amendment and was therefore unconstitutional. This decision, handed down on Flag Day 1943, was considered then to be a pretty good statement of why we were fighting. The role of dissent in the run-up to war is crucial. Before sending young Americans to kill and die in foreign lands, a democracy has a sacred obligation to permit full and searching discussion of the issues. There is no obligation to bow down before a reloaded imperial presidency. Nor does the actuality of war change the situation. As Theodore Roosevelt said in 1918 during the First World War, "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president... is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." Sen. Robert A. Taft, a much revered Republican leader, went a step further when he declared after Pearl Harbor that, "Too many people desire to suppress criticism simply because they think it will give some comfort to the enemy... . If that comfort makes the enemy feel better for a few moments, they are welcome to it ... because the maintenance of the right to criticism in the long run will do the country maintaining it a great deal more good than it will do the enemy." There is little more insolent or despicable than public officials, like the attorney general of the United States, who cry that those who dare question their acts are giving aid and comfort to the terrorists. As for the second question, the historical record shows that Americans have never refrained from dissent or criticism in wartime. Even in the American Revolution, a third of the colonists opposed the drive toward independence. From the War of 1812 through the Mexican War and the Civil War to the wars in Korea and Vietnam, criticism of the White House has thrived. Historically, there is nothing sacrosanct about presidents in wartime. Indeed, no president has any right to send young Americans to kill and die in foreign lands without the most frank and uninhibited discussion and debate. This is all the more the case when a fundamental transformation in the strategy of national security promises a vista of presidential wars stretching far into the future, and this very transformation has taken place recently in our country. For more than 40 years after the Second World War, our national strategy was based on containment and deterrence. This strategy enabled the democracies to win the Cold War peacefully. Had the occasional voices calling for preventive war against the Soviet Union been heeded, few of us would be here today. Now our president has proclaimed a new doctrine of "anticipatory self-defense," which is simply a fancy term for preventive war. In fact, the policy of anticipatory self-defense is the same policy that imperial Japan employed in its attack on Pearl Harbor on a date that still lives in infamy. Today, it is we Americans who live in infamy. The global wave of sympathy that engulfed the United States after 9/11 has given way to a global wave of fear and hatred of American arrogance. Should America serve as the world's initiator of preventive war, its self-appointed judge, jury and executioner? As we struggle to make this decision, I would ask Americans to reflect on the words uttered by a president whom I had the honor and good luck to serve in the White House. "We must face the fact," President John F. Kennedy said 42 years ago at the University of Washington, "that the United States is neither omnipotent nor omniscient... that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity — and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem." As to my third question: What is the nature of patriotism anyway? True patriotism, I propose, consists of living up to the nation's highest ideals. Carl Schurz, a German emigrant who became an influential figure in 19th-century America, defined the true meaning of patriotism when he said: "Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right." _____________________________________________________ Pulitzer Prize-winning historian and social critic Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. was special assistant to President John F. Kennedy. This commentary was adapted from Schlesinger's 2003 commencement address Sunday at Whitman College, where he received an honorary doctorate of human letters. The entire text can be found at www.whitman.edu.